Your thoughts are most appricated. This is born out of the attempt to unify physics around the movers and shakers of the schools of thought. Mead and Feynman would argure that Classical Mechanics is dead. I agree in its current form, deader then a doorknob.
junglelord wrote:I am really learning a lot from the Carver Mead book Collective Electrodynamics. This quote will either mean nothing to you or cause a nonlinear paradigm shift in your world. Classical Mechanics is Dead!. I believe the whole issue in APM, over spin, was what is fundamental? This paradigm would indicate that angular momentum is fundamental, any classical mechanical approach to solve it is "fundamentally flawed" as I kept pointing out in that thread over issue of angular momentum as a fundamental dimension. Since Plasmatic tried to prove with classical mechanics that Quantum Spin is not a fundamental, I think we can lay that argument to rest now. Classical Mechanics is what is not fundamental. Any attempt to say QM or Quantum Strutucture (APM) is not fundamental from a classical mechanics model is not logical.
Thats what I meant by his double worded statement. He really thought he was using logic, but as we can see the circle (double worded sentance that using as a rebuttal acutally proves the case) logic of classical mechanics gyroscopic spin does not apply and is not even fundamental in and of itself.
Classical mechanics is an inappropriate starting point for physics because it is not fundamental; rather it is the incoherent aggregation of the enormous number of quantum elements.
Feynamn wrote
there are many changes and concepts that are important when we go from classical to quantum mechanics. Instead of forces we deal with the way interactions change the wavelengths of waves.
To make contact with the fundamental nature of matter, we must work in a coherent context in which the underlying quantum reality has not been corrupted by incoherent averaging process. Traditional treatments of quantum mechanics universally confused results that follow from the wave nature of matter with those that follow from the statistical nature of the experiment. In the usual picture, these aspects are inextricably intertwined. Einstein himself had a massive case of this confusion, at a cost in the debate with Bohr. Had he stuck to his hunch that the fundamental laws are continuous, he would have fared better; but to do that he would have needed a model quantum system in which statistics play a vanishingly small role. At that time, no such system was known. Today we have many such systems. Of these, none is more accessible than the superconductor itself; it is a quantum phenomenon/system on a grand scale. And, all by itself, provides us strikingly direct access to a near perfect coherent system/state.
Despite the muddle and fuss over theory, the past 70 years have been an age of enlightenment on the experimental front. On the astounding experimental discoveries made during that period, a number are particularly important for the present discussion:
1933, Persistent Current in Superconducting Ring
1933 Expulsion of Magnetic Field by Superconductor
1954 Maser
1960 Atomic Laser
1961 Quantized Flux in Superconducting Ring
1962 Semiconductor Laser
1964 Superconducting Quantum Interface Device
1980 Integer Quantum Hall Effect
1981, Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
1995 Bose-Einstein Condensate
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... T0#PPA7,M1